OneDnD Ranger playtest discussion

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
  • Necromancy is built round a single spell. Any such one trick ponies should be donated to the more focused and less flexible Sorcerers.
  • Enchanters are in a similar position; they are weird when the bard exists.
  • Transmuters could be done well but weren't
Indeed. And what's worse is that there clearly modern archetypes to take inspiration from in different medias. I mean, Diablo had bad-ass necromancers for like 25 years, transmuters being able to shape mater into cool items (the real artificers, IMHO) or golems have been a thing since BG, or enchanter/illusionist/Mesmer/Cypher from Guild War or Pillars being the real masters of mind magic without the ''need'' of a psionic class arent all that new either.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
You just convinced me. The Wizard should lose access to the Enchantment school. In 1e, the Wizard was the everything magic class. But in 5e, we have other kinds of mages. The 5e Wizard needs more focus.
Give them ''magic as science'' with the magic of matter (Conjuration, Evocation, Transmutation) and leave the more ''spiritual magic'' to clerics, ''words of magic'' ''magic of emotions'' to bards.

All in all, I'd say that the Artificer is such a weak class that it could be use as the basic for Wizard with fullcasting. Enchanting items with power, flash of genius etc fit well with the bookish class that is the Wizard.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
Give them ''magic as science'' with the magic of matter (Conjuration, Evocation, Transmutation) and leave the more ''spiritual magic'' to clerics, ''words of magic'' ''magic of emotions'' to bards.

All in all, I'd say that the Artificer is such a weak class that it could be use as the basic for Wizard with fullcasting. Enchanting items with power, flash of genius etc fit well with the bookish class that is the Wizard.
In an other thread, I tweak the school lists. So "Evocation" includes all elemental spells, and Transmutation is only primal spells, comprising Animal, Plant, and Healing spells. Conjuration is various applications of force and magical energy.

In this context, the Wizard is: Conjuration, Evocation, and Illusion.



I feel the Cleric and Warlock are a better go-to for Necromancy (including Undead, Fiend, and Aberration).
 


Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I'd be for this just to see how WoTC tries to balance the schools.
Although it would be good to try, it’s not necessary to succeed. If, say, divination is so weak that few people choose it, and even then only at a higher level, so what? Plus it means that other classes with access to divination will get more out of it.
 

Although it would be good to try, it’s not necessary to succeed. If, say, divination is so weak that few people choose it, and even then only at a higher level, so what? Plus it means that other classes with access to divination will get more out of it.
Sure I wouldn't need perfection. It's just currently a waaay bigger job than it looks like they'd have the appetite for, based on the kinds of changes they're looking at so far.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Don't all legged creatures have weak ankles?
Do two tieflings (or stirges, or purple worms) really count as a "horde"? (And is "more than one opponent" really a favored enemy or more of a tactical situation?)
Don't nearly all of them bleed?

Again, I'm not taking issue with the mechanics themselves, just with the assertion that the concept is fine but WotC implemented in badly. I think the concept is an awkward fit for the needs of an RPG.

I'd rather just see the best-designed mechanics possible, without constraining them by trying to fit them to the label of "favored enemy".

EDIT: Also, I have no need to "win" this point and persuade others. Just stating how I feel about it as I contemplate what I think a Ranger should be. Not that I have any hope/expectation WotC will agree with me.
I know this was a few pages back, but I believe the idea is supposed to be that the ranger is adaptable enough to apply the techniques they honed in fighting their favored enemy to novel situations. So, with hoardbreaker for example, it’s not that their favored enemy is “any two creatures standing next to each other,” it’s that through fighting a favored enemy that usually fights in large groups (let’s say it’s kobolds, for example), they got really good at fighting enemies that stand in close formation, which turns out to be useful not just against kobolds, but against any two creatures standing next to each other. The colossus slayer’s favored enemy may have been giants, but in their experience fighting giants, they learned to more effectively harry already wounded enemies. The Banisher’s favored enemy may have been demons, but it turns out that the techniques used for sending demons back to the abyss are also useful in sending all sorts of other extraplanar creatures back to their home planes. Etc.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I know this was a few pages back, but I believe the idea is supposed to be that the ranger is adaptable enough to apply the techniques they honed in fighting their favored enemy to novel situations. So, with hoardbreaker for example, it’s not that their favored enemy is “any two creatures standing next to each other,” it’s that through fighting a favored enemy that usually fights in large groups (let’s say it’s kobolds, for example), they got really good at fighting enemies that stand in close formation, which turns out to be useful not just against kobolds, but against any two creatures standing next to each other. The colossus slayer’s favored enemy may have been giants, but in their experience fighting giants, they learned to more effectively harry already wounded enemies.

Oh, yeah, I get the idea behind it. I've just always...or, at least, in most cases...found the link between the naming and the actual mechanics to be so tenuous that I wonder why its worth trying to keep up the facade.

But maybe I'm being overly picky/critical.

Maybe what would work is to make these features more flavorful/specific, but less generally useful, and then buff the class in other, more reliable ways. For example...

The Banisher’s favored enemy may have been demons, but it turns out that the techniques used for sending demons back to the abyss are also useful in sending all sorts of other extraplanar creatures back to their home planes. Etc.

I like the flavor of this, but how about making it actually about banishing? "When you make a weapon attack against a creature that is not on its home plane and score a critical hit, until your next turn that creature suffers disadvantage on saving throws against magic that would return it to its plane."

Super, super, flavorful (in my opinion) but will only rarely actually come into play, which means its practically a ribbon (and the class can have other features to compensate). But when it does get used it will feel awesome.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Oh, yeah, I get the idea behind it. I've just always...or, at least, in most cases...found the link between the naming and the actual mechanics to be so tenuous that I wonder why its worth trying to keep up the facade.

But maybe I'm being overly picky/critical.
Well, because we want the flavor of the ranger, and we also want its class features to be good, and not to be DM/campaign dependent.
Maybe what would work is to make these features more flavorful/specific, but less generally useful, and then buff the class in other, more reliable ways. For example...
I like the flavor of this, but how about making it actually about banishing? "When you make a weapon attack against a creature that is not on its home plane and score a critical hit, until your next turn that creature suffers disadvantage on saving throws against magic that would return it to its plane."

Super, super, flavorful (in my opinion) but will only rarely actually come into play, which means it’s practically a ribbon (and the class can have other features to compensate). But when it does get used it will feel awesome.
I like that it’s actually about banishing, but I hate that it’s so weak, and that it’s reliant on magic. Why would we want one of the ranger’s few unique defining features to just be a ribbon? What else would you give them to make them actually capable? More spells? No, thanks.
 

The thing that made the spell schools interesting in AD&D was that you had to make hard choices about which schools you wanted to take and leave. I don't think that really matches the current WotC ethos of giving spellcasters options on top of options.
The thing is that that type of "interesting" is interesting at character creation. During play however 100% of the interesting part of this is over and it's barely even thematic.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
The thing is that that type of "interesting" is interesting at character creation. During play however 100% of the interesting part of this is over and it's barely even thematic.
Oh I don’t know. I think solving problems with a more constrained toolbox is interesting. Maybe we are talking about different things.
 

niklinna

Legend
There's a difference between the distinction being immediately relevant to a decision, and the consequences of that decision being relevant. Now I'm wondering how an encounter would go where the foes can only be affected by spells of a particular school, and that was an immediate factor in the moment.....
 

The thing is that that type of "interesting" is interesting at character creation. During play however 100% of the interesting part of this is over and it's barely even thematic.
I don't really agree, based on 2E Specialist Wizards, of which I saw quite a few.

They definitely more interesting to watch be played than generalist Wizards. Transmuters and Illusionists particularly.
 

Oh I don’t know. I think solving problems with a more constrained toolbox is interesting. Maybe we are talking about different things.
But in AD&D your toolbox wasn't significantly more constrained by specialising. You only knew a handful of spells by default anyway - you just had a slightly more focused toolbox and far more spells you could cast.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
But in AD&D your toolbox wasn't significantly more constrained by specialising. You only knew a handful of spells by default anyway - you just had a slightly more focused toolbox and far more spells you could cast.
Ah. I wasn’t specifically defending AD&D’s implementation. Just saying that I can imagine it working well.
 

shadowoflameth

Adventurer
My thoughts on the Playtest Ranger:
Expertise. I think this is fine both thematically and in power level. And it does not hurt backward compatibility.
Favored Enemy. Give the Ranger his choice of actual Favored Enemy. Instead of altering a spell, (Hunter's Mark) make this a non-magical ability that the Ranger has. Then it can't be dispelled or counter spelled and doesn't require casting. If you say that actual favored enemy is always considered affected by it, then the choice of enemy has value and the Ranger can still put it on someone else, and simplify. Just say add one damage die to the attack. i.e. Longbow does 2d10 instead of one vs. the target.
Spell Casting. I think this is fine. Adding Cantrips and making the ranger a prepared caster works, but give classes an actual spell list both for ease of use and to avoid missing spells that the Ranger should thematically have. You could leave out spells that they shouldn't have and to preserve backward compatibility. Give Rangers a spell focus.
Fighting Style. I think this is fine both thematically and in power level. And it does not hurt backward compatibility.
Sub-classes, deserve to be addressed individually. The ones presented are not great, and not terrible generally.
Feats, and Extra Attack work like they do for other classes and they are fine.
Roving. This is a strong (though situational ability). Much more useful than the 5e counterpart but I think it's fine for a 7th level ability.
Tireless. The THP are unneeded to me. Just make ordinary exertion from travel, labor etc. not cause exhaustion to the Ranger. As a side note, I think we can stick to 5 levels of exhaustion. I like that the playtest version is streamlined but 6 levels is plenty to cause death.
Nature's Veil. Instead of altering a spell, (Invisibility) make this a non-magical ability that the Ranger has. Then it can't be dispelled or counter spelled and doesn't require casting. Just say, when the Ranger hides in a natural setting, he becomes invisible until revealed.
Foe slayer. This is good, and it should be for an 18th level ability, but simplify. Just say add one damage die to the attack. i.e. Favored enemy now makes a Longbow 3d10 instead of 2d10.
Epic Destiny. I like this idea a lot but make the choices truly Epic. It's 20th level.

My 2 cents only IMHO. I know some just don't like the Favored Enemy at all because it's so situational, but it's easily fixed by an ability that can be targeted if your actual favored enemy isn't present in the fight.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top